4 ms·

If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not su

If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however. I would guess most of us understand that scientific findings are contingent on future experiments and results. If your post was to point out a specific flaw, e.g., that the sample could have been pre- or post-contaminated, then it falls short of anything substantive and actionable. Nobody can do anything with it. Yes, you are correct. But no, there is not anything anyone can do with the critique. If you're going to point out a flaw, it needs to be something that you, the authors, or other PIs can check, perform, etc.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
My post was clearly not pointing out flaws in this specific research. Not sure how you get that impression. I first replied to a comment implying that just because research is widely publicised it should be accepted at face value, with a counterexample. That was all. Then someone replied to that with the absurd implication I was somehow trying to denounce all of science based on that one example. I corrected them. The only thing I said about this specific research was the following: >>But it's not like the findings are earth shattering given previous research. Therefore I lean towards optimism. If you inferred any other comment on the research than that, the source of that is your imagination, not anything I wrote.
- craftsman 4y ago
  As I said, > If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however.
coldtea 4y ago
>But no, there is not anything anyone can do with the critique Critique doesn't just exist to be actionable. It can also exist (as in this case) to remind of a possibility. Especially in this case, where the possibility is precluded. In fact that was the very intended. Pre/post contamination could still have happened, we can't just exclude it because "protocols were followed". Protocols have been followed in other cases where errors got in the way to. Perhaps you didn't wanted to see a general comment, but somebody spotting a specific error in a specific step of the actual process?
- craftsman 4y ago
  As I said in another comment, you may be reading too much into the statement to the press as opposed to the actual paper. It's more likely that the author quoted as saying that something could be "ruled out" meant, more precisely, that the possibility of contamination is very small, but non-zero, and that the overwhelmingly more likely conclusion is the existence of said compounds.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

My post was clearly not pointing out flaws in this specific research. Not sure how you get that impression. I first replied to a comment implying that just because research is widely publicised it should be accepted at face value, with a counterexample. That was all. Then someone replied to that with the absurd implication I was somehow trying to denounce all of science based on that one example. I corrected them. The only thing I said about this specific research was the following: >>But it's not like the findings are earth shattering given previous research. Therefore I lean towards optimism. If you inferred any other comment on the research than that, the source of that is your imagination, not anything I wrote.

craftsman 4y ago
As I said, > If your post was simply to say, "This paper could have flaws and its conclusions could be incorrect," then yes, almost all of us will agree with you. I'm not sure it's big news, however.

coldtea 4y ago

>But no, there is not anything anyone can do with the critique Critique doesn't just exist to be actionable. It can also exist (as in this case) to remind of a possibility. Especially in this case, where the possibility is precluded. In fact that was the very intended. Pre/post contamination could still have happened, we can't just exclude it because "protocols were followed". Protocols have been followed in other cases where errors got in the way to. Perhaps you didn't wanted to see a general comment, but somebody spotting a specific error in a specific step of the actual process?

craftsman 4y ago
As I said in another comment, you may be reading too much into the statement to the press as opposed to the actual paper. It's more likely that the author quoted as saying that something could be "ruled out" meant, more precisely, that the possibility of contamination is very small, but non-zero, and that the overwhelmingly more likely conclusion is the existence of said compounds.